was given to a tory,* the Duke of Grafton; Pitt, now created Earl of Chatham, being prevented by ill health from attending to business, had but little influence; and the control of the finances was entrusted to Charles Townshend, a man of splendid abilities, but of fickle and uncertain character. He thought it would be manifesting a sufficient degree of prudence and compliance, if he should refrain from taxing America directly, and merely regulate its commerce, as had so often been done before without opposition. When he proposed accordingly, in June, 1767, to levy duties on glass, paper, painters' colors, and tea entering into the colonies, the bill was passed, almost without opposition, into a law.

As soon as the Americans received news of this, they were unwilling any longer to recognize the former nice and too artificial distinction, that England ought indeed voluntarily to give up direct taxation, but that to indirect taxation she was perfectly entitled. They justly observed, that the prohibition to manufac ture certain articles of commerce (as, for instance, hats), and the command to purchase only those of English make, undoubtedly included within themselves a tax, and the new duties would create a revenue at the expense of Americans just as much as the Stamp Act. Agreements were again entered into to import no English goods until the duties were taken off-a sort of indirect compulsion, which was both allowable and very unpleasing to England. The animated declarations of the legislative assemblies against British taxation in any shape, and their open endea vors to enter into closer connection with each other for the sake of more effectual resistance, were regarded by the governors as still more dangerous, on account of their formal nature. When the governors on this account dissolved the assemblies, the malcontents formed private associations, which soon assumed a regular form, and proceeded with great applause to carry out the objects at which they aimed, and especially to support and strengthen the combination against English goods. The occupation of Boston and other places with English troops (September, 1768) increased the general discontent, without adding to the power of government. The payment and quartering of troops was every where refused on the ground of existing laws, and the proposal to grant sums for the salaries of officers in perpetuo was rejected, as it would place the ruling power in the hands of a few irresponsible persons. The command that all evasions of the customs should be tried and punished in England, was termed a violation of the most important principles of the British constitution.†

*Grahame, iv. 249.

↑ Grahame, iv. 276. Belsham, vi. 11, 21. Ramsay, i. 150. Adolphus, i. 358. Politisches Journal, 1781, p. 53.

In this state of things the English government a second time changed its measures. In April, 1770, an act was passed, by 350 votes against 62, granting a partial repeal of the duties levied in the year 1767. Those on glass, paper, and painters' colors, were taken off altogether; but that on tea was raised threepence a pound. By this means, the majority asserted, the burden was diminished, while the principle was preserved. On this occasion Grenville remarked: My strictness was the best means; Rockingham's unconditional repeal of the taxes the next best; but this middle way is the worst of all. Others said: It is absurd to keep up the contention while the advantage is surren dered. And Burke exclaimed: What dignity is derived from perseverance in absurdity is more than I ever could discern.* Regardless of these and similar reproaches, Lord North (who had succeeded to Townshend's place in September, 1770) declared: "A total repeal of the duties cannot be thought of till America lies prostrate at our feet!" Such vaporing was certainly unworthy of a statesman, and created a most disagreeable and exciting sensation in America. The compacts, however, against English goods were immediately dissolved, and retained only against tea.

But unhappily at this time many faulty measures and unfortunate occurrences took place. A constitution was introduced into Canada which gave reason to fear that similar restrictive pro visions would be imposed upon the other colonies. The governor of Massachusetts lived in discord with the patriots of that province; he advised harsh measures, as was shown by intercepted correspondence, and made the judges wholly dependent on himself: these things gave rise, in March, 1777, to bloody conflicts in Boston between the people and the troops. Thus violent opposition gradually took the place of respectful remonstrances, and there needed but one new error on the part of the English government to stir up the passions also in behalf of the American doctrines.†

In consequence of the diminished export of tea to the colonies, an immense stock of that article had accumulated in the warehouses of the East India Company; for which reason the gov ernment gave permission to send it to all places whatever, duty free. As the remission thus granted amounted to a shilling on the pound, while the American import duty was only threepence; as the East India Company ordered their consignees in America to pay this latter tax, which was thus concealed in the price; and lastly, as the price of the tea, by taking off the threepence and by

*Belsham, v. 360. Adolphus, i. 464. Genz Histor. Journal, 1800, ii. 28. Burke on American Taxation, ii. 366. † Ramsay, i. 172. Burke, ii. 363.

the recent abatement of a shilling, was brought much lower than before, it was thought that the Americans would thankfully acknowledge the advantages held out to them, and willingly make purchases. But, on the contrary, they said, "Shall we sell our rights like cowards for a trifling gain in the way of a tax; shall we show ourselves meaner and more selfish than England, who evidently surrenders greater advantages for the present, in order to carry out her claims to unconditional sovereignty?" Accordingly it was resolved that none of the tea should be bought, and that all ships laden there with should be prevented from landing their cargoes. This was carried literally into effect in New York and Philadelphia, although not every where: in Charleston the tea was seized and kept till it spoiled; and in Boston seventeen persons disguised as Indians threw, on the 18th of December, 1773, three hundred and forty-two chests of tea into the sea. Not a single chest landed in North America was sold there.*

As soon as Parliament received the news of these events, the majority, without reflecting on the primary cause that produced them, turned their attention solely to the outrages last committed in Boston. But instead of investigating the circumstances of the transaction, and finding out the instigators and participants therein, instead, in short, of taking the fair and proper course, they imposed (March, 1774) a heavy fine on the whole city, and laid an embargo on Boston harbor. In vain did Chatham, Rockingham, and others, declare themselves in favor of milder and conciliatory measures; in vain did Burke remind them that at length opposition was directed only against unjust laws, and that from this very circumstance it was evident how improper it was to condemn without a hearing, and to try to enforce constitutional principles by the military arm.†

The citizens of Boston said to the same effect: "How is it possible that for the offence of individuals and before any legal investigation, an unsuitable, incalculable, and destructive punishment is to be inflicted upon the whole city? How can it be required that dependence on Great Britain should outlive its justice?"

The feeling of right which advocated the propriety of indemnifying the East India Company for the loss of their tea, on the part of those who had caused it, was now excited in a much stronger degree in favor of the innocent inhabitants of Boston; though it was expected that a more equitable and moderate course would be adopted by England. But instead of so doing, Parliament about this time (May, 1774) changed the constitution of Massachusetts in its most essential particulars. It was enacted that the provincial council, hitherto chosen by the representative * Grahame, iv. 329. ↑ Hinton, i. 312.

assembly, should hereafter be appointed by the crown. The appointment of most of the public officers, and the removal of councillors and judges, were intrusted to the will of the gov ernor; the town-meetings were made entirely dependent on him; and not the slightest respect was paid to the contents of the old charters, to which all these proceedings were opposed. Lord North said: "If this bill does not rest on grounds of the greatest political necessity, it rests on nothing. And in fact it did rest on nothing; yet 239 against 64 voted for it in the lower house, and 92 against 20 in the upper house, remaining true to the conviction, that severity would soon set all to rights!

Allowing that the constitution of Massachusetts exhibited great defects, still it was exceedingly rash to change its form just at that moment-exceedingly short-sighted to destroy despotically the recognized rights and charters of an entire people, and to play the reformer so awkwardly and unjustly. At any rate it might have been distinctly foreseen that herein the omnipotence of Parliament was still less likely to be acknowledged than it was in paying the duties on tea.

The third blundering encroachment of the English ministry consisted in a law passed at the same time, to the effect that any person indicted for murder or any other capital offence committed in aiding the magistracy of Massachusetts should be tried in another colony, or in England.

These measures, the blame bestowed on them even in the British Parliament, the public meetings, correspondence, and publications of all kinds, raised the enthusiasm in favor of North American freedom to such a pitch, that even the most circumspect coincided in—or at least did not venture to oppose-the assertion, that it was necessary to bear present sufferings with cheerfulness, in order to escape the great and inevitable evils with which they were threatened. The restrictions of old constitutions and governments were less effectual in accustoming men to an anarchy hitherto unknown, than they were in leading to new measures which far surpassed in boldness all that had been attempted before. Thus the combination entered into by newly established committees, communicated to all undertakings and movements a rapidity, unanimity, and activity, of which no example had hitherto been given; and which was afterwards repeated in the Jacobin clubs in another and more fearful manner.

Boston bore the very heavy loss arising from the embargo on its commerce, with immoveable firmness; and experienced every where such hearty sympathy, that even the inhabitants of the neighboring town of Salem-whither it was designed to turn

*Belsham, vi. 54.

† Burke, iii. 60. Ramsay, i. 217.

the course of trade, as a punishment to Boston,-declared, that they would consider it shameful to enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow-citizens. The proclamation of General Gage, the English commander-in-chief in Massachusetts, to the effect that the compacts against trade with England were hostile and traitorous, led merely to a controversial correspondence; while every one acted in the matter as he pleased. The attempt to establish a new government in Massachusetts failed; since several of the persons appointed by the king declined their offices, and others were prevented from assuming them by the people. Thus there ensued a general stoppage of all the courts and public offices, without giving immediate rise to riots, and acts of violence. When, however, the rumor was spreadperhaps intentionally-that Boston had been bombarded by the British, many thousands assembled immediately in the surrounding country; and all the custom-house officers and other public functionaries, including even the newly established courts in Salem, were compelled to flee to Boston.

Four months after the reception of the Boston Port Bill, on the 5th of September, 1774, the delegates of twelve provinces (Georgia followed later) met in general congress in Philadelphia; they gave one vote to each state, and chose Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, as their president. In some of the provinces the deputies had been appointed by the legislative assemblies; in others, where the governors opposed it, this had been performed by assemblies of the people on their own authority. The resolutions that emanated from the congress abounded in strong assurances of loyalty, and of legitimate adherence to the mother-country. They acknowledged the prerogatives of the crown, and disclaimed all desire of separation. But, on the other hand, they firmly maintained, that they were entitled to all the rights of native British subjects; that the late proceedings against Massachusetts were illegal and oppressive, and consequently were to be regarded as a matter of common concern to all the states. True, said they, the British Parliament can make certain regulations, and impose certain restrictions intended to benefit the trade of the whole kingdom; but no tax can be levied on the Americans without their own consent; and to them belongs the right of devising all laws for their internal government, and of laying them before the king. The congress resolved, moreover, that the American settlers had the right to be tried by their peers, to assemble peaceably together to consider their grievances, and present petitions to the king. It was contrary to law, they said, to keep a standing army in America without the consent of the provincial assemblies, and to make the legislative power entirely dependent on a council, simply appointed by the